socialism, property, and the state

[David Floyd]

Had they properly understood the dangers that the bureaucracy represented, they would have fought it far more dillegently, rather than waking up to the danger only when it was too late.

Incorrect - Stalin cared only for power, not freedom or the people.

[chequita guevara]

Stalin was the political representative of the bureaucracy. My point stands.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You may say that Americans would never elect socialists, but never is a very long time, and capitalism doesn't have that long. Besides, it wasn't too long ago that the Communist Party USA was the largest party in the United States in terms of party membership. Someday capitalism will fall. The only question is, will we go forward to socialism or will we become extinct as a species.

When our concept of brotherhood evolves to the point where we recognise that we all are brothers and sisters, capitalism will no longer be necessary. This will take a while. Until then capitalism will have to do.

Competition is good, but co-operation is better. One day we will all realise this.

[chequita guevara]

Hwah!

[David Floyd]

Stalin was the political representative of the bureaucracy. My point stands.

Stalin was one of Lenin's lieutenants. And Lenin was ruthless himself, ordering the public murder of dissenting kulaks.

[Guynemer]

Okay, who hi-jacked Caligastia's account?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Okay, who hi-jacked Caligastia's account?

I have always said this on Apolyton, but I guess nobody noticed till now.

[David Floyd]

Stop the damn threadjack.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Stalin was one of Lenin's lieutenants.

One that Lenin unsuccessfully tried to have removed once he realized the danger that Stalin represented.

Lenin's ruthlessness, if it was not merely a forgery of Pipes, needs to be considered in the cnotext of the Civil War and imperialist invasions. Everywhere the Whites tread, they left a wake of death. They were the first fascists, and they represented such a great danger that any aid to them had to be crushed.

[Caligastia]

What threadjack?

[David Floyd]

One that Lenin unsuccessfully tried to have removed once he realized the danger that Stalin represented.

The danger to Lenin's power, you mean.

Lenin's ruthlessness, if it was not merely a forgery of Pipes, needs to be considered in the cnotext of the Civil War and imperialist invasions. Everywhere the Whites tread, they left a wake of death. They were the first fascists, and they represented such a great danger that any aid to them had to be crushed.

Of course, the Reds started it by shooting the Czar (who probably deserved it) and his entire family (who didn't). Either war is hell, and you can't condemn either side, or you condemn both for their atrocities. One or the other.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The danger to Lenin's power, you mean.

Lenin was a bed ridden invalid at the time. The only power he had was what remained of his intellect after his strokes and his moral authority. Hence, his inability to have Stalin removed.

Of course, the Reds started it by shooting the Czar (who probably deserved it) and his entire family (who didn't). Either war is hell, and you can't condemn either side, or you condemn both for their atrocities. One or the other.

Who says I don't condemn both. I find the excesses of the Red Terror deplorable, but I find the Whites to be far worse. Every side was engaged in attrocities. Only one side, however, punished those of its own that we found guilty of attrocities, the Bolsheviks. Trotsky didn't need to hang very many Red Army soldiers before they got the idea that raping and looting was not allowed.

Also, the Whites initiated the terror in 1917, with the massacre of 500 Bolsheviks in Moscow. The Red Terror began in 1918 after the Socialist Revolutionaries tried to launch a coup assassinating several leading Bolsheviks and nearly killing Lenin.

[Arrian]

Che,

Sure, there is a lot more to human nature than selfishness. I never meant to say otherwise. However, selfishness is a component of our nature. Like I said, some are more selfish than others. However, I do not believe that you can remove self interest from human beings. It will always be there - it's a part of what we are. So, if you allow people to govern themselves (or at least elect people to govern them) as in a modern democracy, you will get inequality.

I though communism was about equality. You stated that inequality would remain under communism. Now, it's clear that it did in the USSR and does in the other communist states, but I take it you mean even your imagined communist state, which of course will avoid the mistakes of old. Elaborate, please.

I undestand that in a perfect world, communism would be democratic. However, the more I thought about that, the more convinced I became that democracy and communism are incompatible. Because if you allow freedom, you cannot force people to be unselfish.

I don't actually expect to convince you, of course, any more than you will convince me that communism is the way to go. But I am curious... specifically about exactly how you think you could set up a functioning democractic communist state.

-Arrian

[David Floyd]

Who says I don't condemn both. I find the excesses of the Red Terror deplorable, but I find the Whites to be far worse. Every side was engaged in attrocities. Only one side, however, punished those of its own that we found guilty of attrocities, the Bolsheviks. Trotsky didn't need to hang very many Red Army soldiers before they got the idea that raping and looting was not allowed.

Well if you condemn both you're one of the first - most communists seem to applaud the murder of the Czar's family. I'm also not concerned with scope or who started what, merely with making the point that both sides were deplorable, and tried to justify their atrocities with the atrocities of the other side, which is unacceptable.

[chequita guevara]

A democracy can easily punish selfishness, either by prison or by simpler means such as ostracism. Furthermore, self-interest != selfishness. It is by self-interest that socialsimand communist will ultiamtely be established, because it is in the self-interest of people to cooperate rather than compete.